Tanning Attitudes That Predict the Prevalence and Frequency of Tanning bed use in Older Adolescents and Young Adults in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tanning bed use is a modifiable risk factor in the development of \nmelanoma skin cancer. Despite the increased risk of skin cancer, tanning bed use is most \ncommon among the adolescent and young adult population. Adolescents and young \nadults intentionally expose their skin to the artificial ultraviolet (UV) radiation emitted \nfrom tanning equipment. In Canada, the indoor tanning industry is largely unregulated \nand in need of a coordinated public health intervention. \nObjectives: The objective of the study was to estimate the prevalence and \nfrequency of tanning bed use in the past 12 months and to identify the tanning attitudes \nthat predict the prevalence and higher frequency of tanning bed use in the past 12 months \nin the older adolescent and young adult population in Canada. The purpose of the study \nwas to identify key points of intervention and to provide valuable information to help \ninform policy makers and health promotion workers when developing a strategy to \nreduce exposure to artificial UV radiation. \nMethods: The study used the data collected in the 2006 Second National Sun \nSurvey (NSS2), the most recent and comprehensive survey in Canada to examine \nexposure to UV radiation. A logistic regression and negative binomial regression model \nwas used to predict the prevalence and higher frequency of tanning bed use in the past 12 \nmonths among older adolescents and young adults (aged 16 to 34) in the 2006 NSS2, \nrespectively. \nResults: Overall, 21.5% of females and 8.3% of males (aged 16 to 34) in Canada \nwere found to have had used artificial tanning equipment at least once in the past 12 \nmonths in 2006. Among those who had used a tanning bed in the past 12 months, 7.0% of \niv \nfemales and 10.3% of males had used the equipment once, compared to 41.3% of females \nand 29.2% of males who had used the equipment more than 12 times. \nThe individual level determinants that predict any use of a tanning bed in the past \n12 months include gender (female), ethnicity (white), the intent to suntan during the \nsummer months (always or often), the belief that people look better with a tan, and the \nbelief that you look more attractive with a tan. In addition, having skin that will freckle \n(no suntan) when repeatedly exposed to sunlight was negatively associated with any use \nof a tanning bed in the past 12 months. The belief that a tan gives a healthy outdoor look, \non the other hand, did not predict any tanning bed use in the past 12 months. Among \nthose who had used a tanning bed in the past 12 months, the individual level determinants \nthat predict the higher frequency of tanning bed use include gender (female), skin that \nwill moderately tan when repeatedly exposed to sunlight, the use of a tanning bed to look \nbetter (reported as ‘very important’), and the use of a tanning bed to relax or feel better \n(reported as ‘very important’). The use of a tanning bed to boost their immune system, to \nprotect against cancer, and to get vitamin D did not predict the higher frequency of \ntanning bed use in the past 12 months. \nConclusion: Tanning bed use in the older adolescent and young adult population \nis a significant and growing public health concern both in Canada and worldwide. The \nappearance-related motivation to use a tanning bed, but not the health-related motivation \nto use a tanning bed, is predictive of tanning bed use and is a key point of intervention. \nThe tobacco industry is similar to the indoor tanning industry; however, tobacco control \nefforts have led to the development of evidence-based policies, which may provide a \nframework to reduce tanning bed use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".